Loading...
PC MINS 197707120 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting July 12, 1977 The meeting was called to order at 7:41 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman McTaggart. PRESENT: Bacharach, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart ABSENT: Blue Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Gary Weber, and Assistant Planner Keith Turner. MINUTES APPROVAL On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously car- ried, the minutes of the meeting of June 20, 1977, were approved as submitted. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, and unanimously car- ried, the minutes of the meeting of June 23, 1977, were approved with the following amendments: under SR -7, #9, should read "Encourage development of the land in a manner....." On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously car- ried, the minutes of June 28, 1977, were approved with the following amend- ments: page 6, paragraph 6, line 2, should read "...a unit. She also..."; page 7, paragraph 10, last line, add "...the multiples as rentals."; page 8, paragraph 4, should read "...where re -piping has to be done..... should require that insulation is brought up to standards."; page 8, paragraph 14, should read "...is the intent of the motion." Mr. McTaggart suggested that no decisions be made on those items heard after 11:00 p.m. He said they would open public hearing, take testimony, close the public hearing temporarily and continue to the next meeting. The Commission was split 2-2 on this idea and it, therefore, failed. Mr. McTaggart asked the audience to not be repetitious due to the lengthy agenda. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32991 Mr. Weber said that since the last CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23 meeting, the applicant has submitted Adjacent to intersection of Palos complete grading plans, site plans, Verdes Drive South & East house plans, and view analysis. He Applicant: Western America Dev. said the proposed grading is in general Corp. (for P.V. Ptoperti6s)' conformance with the criteria; some lots exceed the allowable grading and some will encroach into areas of ex- treme slope, but this appears to be minor and necessary to locate the house or driveway. Re view obstruction, he indicated that lot 47 would obstruct some view and said the draft conditions state that all structures must com- ply with the 16 -foot height limit." -Staff is of the opinion that the pro- posed residential planned development is consistent with the criteria and standards established in the Code, and recommends that the Commission for- mally approve the conditional use permit and move to recommend approval of the tentative tract map, both subject to conditions. Mr. Weber proposed changes to the conditions as follows: #2 of the condi- tional use permit Exhibit "A", third line --- "...within two (2) years from the date of the final tract map or phasing of tract maps..."; #5. b. of the tentative tract map Exhibit "A", third line --- 11C, 45, and 46..."; #7, line one "--;-:Final Map...."; #10 ___ "...tentatively required, #14, line 2 "...Lot 1 through 9..."; #16, line 2 --- "-...cash deposit .....or a combination..."; #16, line 3 --- "Those portions which abut Palos Verdes Drive South..." Mr. Rosenberg felt that #30, 31 and 32 should be done prior to tentative tract map approval and suggested taking this up at a work session. He felt very strongly that the sequence of events was off, particularly in the area of geology. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the Commission approved a condition to be included stating that any substantial change in grading requires that the item come back to the Planning Commission. On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimou-sly carried, a condition was added that no driveway slope shall be over 20% and that there shall be a landing at the bottom, as required by the City Engineer. Mr. McTaggart asked about dedicating a portion of the ancient landslide area to the City, which was mentioned at a previous meeting. He expressed concern over the extensive amount of vacant unusable land. Don Dawson said a letter has been prepared. Director Hightower said that staff was asked by the City Council to pre- pare a pro and con report for their next meeting, and that the way the conditions are written, it could go either way. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously car- ried, a condition was added to include the provision that the development rights be deeded to the City. Director Hightower said condition #6 of the conditional use permit Exhibit "A" covered development rights. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously car- ried, Resolution No. 77-13 (P.C.) was adopted, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 23, subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A" as modified this evening. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by ried, the Commission recommended to Tract Map No. 32991, subject to the this evening. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33034 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 24 End of Calle de Suenos Applicant: Herbert Angel (for Palos Verdes Properties) Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously car - the City Council approval of Tentative conditions in Exhibit "A" as modified There were several people wishing to speak and to submit petitions to the Commission concerning the traffic problem on Crest Road and the desire for the extension of Calle de Suenos. Mr. McTaggart explained that the public hearing was closed at the last meeting, that the Commission heard a great deal of testimony, and that they had asked staff to research some of the points brought up. Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion to re -open the public'hearing and place a two -minute time limit on each speaker. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. McTaggart asked for the staff report, and said the petitions and any other written material should be submitted to the staff to be read to the Commission after the staff report. Mr. Weber explained that the Commission had expressed concern over the lack of concept plans for individual lots, the location of the proposed easement, and refinement of certain proposed conditions. He reviewed the staff report which discussed these concerns. Mr. Weber proposed revisions to the conditions of approval limiting the height of structures, concerning the methods of bonding, emergency access and trail, as described in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the tentative tract map, both subject to revised conditions. Mr. McTaggart called on the owner of lot 34 (the most affected lot) to speak if he had any questions. Dale Cross, owner, said he did not understand about the effect the grading would have on his view. Mr. McTaggart explained that staff felt the grad- ing was excessive but necessary to minimize view impact. P.C. MINUTES -2- 7/12/77 Mrs. Bacharach noted a communication from Barr Ruston, and Director High- tower read the two petitions and distributed pictures to the Commission. Someone in the audience expressed concern about a recent accident which had Crest Road blobked for two hours. Someone -else expressed concern about their fire insurance premiums going up. Harold Henbest, 7127 Crest Road, suggested a road across Los Verdes Golf Course between the front and back "9" holes. He felt if an easement could be obtained for emergency access, why not for a road. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the Planning Commission directed staff to ask the Council to ex- plore and begin the necessary negotiations with the County for the possi- bility of getting the road through the golf course. Director Hightower said the easement would have to be widened if this pro- posal is accepted. Mr. Angel said it would have to be 36 feet wide. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously car- ried, the Commission moved to expand the easement to 36 feet. Mr. Hughes said he shared staff's concerns re the location of the pedes- trian access easement and moved to require the location of the trail ease- ment to be as shown now on the tentative tract map. Mr. McTaggart seconded the motion. Mrs. Bacharach said she was opposed because the people buying the new homes - would be aware of its existence before purchase and the landscaping may obstruct views of existing homes. The above motion failed with the following roll call vote: AYES: Hughes, McTaggart NOES: Bacharach, Rosenberg ABSENT: Blue Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to approve Reso- lution No. 77-14 (P.C.) approving Conditional Use Permit No. 24 subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A". Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: None ABSENT: Blue Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 33034, subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A". Roll call vote as as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: None ABSENT: Blue Mr. Weber asked if the Commission wished the grading plan as proposed to be accepted in the conditional use permit resolution. There was a con - census among the Commissioners that this grading plan be accepted. RECESS At 9:40 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:50 p.m. with the same members present. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33358 Mr. Weber said at the last meeting CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 25 public hearing was continued. He said SE corner of Palos Verdes Drive they discussed visual character, tennis South & Seahill Drive court lighting and location, road de - Applicant: Mercury Enterprises sign, lot coverage, and church access. (for Western Brass Dev.Co.) The consensus of the Commission appeared P.C. MINUTES -3- 7/12/77 to be that although the tentative map seems to satisfy fundamental develop- ment standards, the project fails to respond to certain critical design concepts such as overall visual character, existing--(riews, relationship to adjacent sites, and intensity of improvements. He said the applicant was requested to present examples of alternative design concepts. Staff recom- mends the public hearing be re -opened and the alternative design approach discussed, and that the Commission provide the applicant with specific direction. Mr. Eberting, representing the applicant, presented alternative plans to the Commission. Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Hughes stated that they liked alternative #4 better than the proposed plan because it is a more responsive design. Mr. Rosenberg requested comparisons between alternative #4 and the proposed project. Mr. McTaggart concured. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously car- ried, the public hearing was temporarily closed and continued for discussion. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to table Tenta- tive Tract Map No. 33358 and Conditional Use Permit No. 25, until such time as the applicant submits elevations and additional site view sections, in response to the comments tonight. Mr. Hughes requested information on the impact of the project on view con- trol from the Drive to the ocean; and Director Hightower suggested that the applicant minimize the amount of asphalt. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried to amend the above motion to include the above suggestions. That motion was unanimously approved as amended. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 56 APPEAL Mr. Turner said the height variation 4272 Stalwart Drive was received May 4 for the second Applicant: Dr. & Mrs. Simon story addition and that staff review Appellant: Mr. & Mrs. Heckman and inspection indicated no potential for view obstruction. He noted that during the comment period, 16 written objections were received, but that still seeing no view obstruction poten- tial and in light of the recent City Attorney interpretation that the criteria for height variation evaluation relate only to view obstruction, staff approved the project. He said on June 3 this action was appealed and that -the thrust of the appeal is an infringement of privacy, personal rights, and view obstruction as well as depreciation to property. Attached to the letter of appeal was a petition (signed by 26 residents) supporting the appeal, and also received was a letter from the Seaview Residents Asso- ciation supporting the appeal. Mr. Turner discussed the photographs and plans, and staff recommendation was that the height variation appeal be denied based on no view obstruction. Mr. Rosenberg asked about view obstruction being the main criteria, and Director Hightower said that the City Attorney indicated that eadh of the criteria must be in relationship to view obstruction only. 177P6, 49115. Mrs. Bacharach said during inspection, she spoke withN-r'. Ashby and W. Heckman; and Mr. Hughes said during inspection, he spoke with the applicant. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant, president of the Seaview Residents Association, explained that they have one story deed restrictions. He felt the addition would have a cumulative impact, would create a loss of skylines and would encourage additional applications. He said there was a lack of compati- bility due to the location of the two structures (the homes of the appli- cant and appellant). The following people spoke in opposition to the height variation: Harold Kennedy, 4256 Stalwart Drive; Ethel Heckman and Mr. Heckman, 4306 Dauntless; Ludwig Zelt, 4354 Exultant; Raymond Ashby, 4260 Stalwart; and Mrs. Pehler, 4257 Dauntless. Their main concern was loss of privacy, and it was pointed out that a view can mean different things to different people. P.C. MINUTES -4- 7/12/77 Jan Simon, the applicant, stated their need for space, it is really a split level rather than a two-story proposal, they would be willing to eliminate the window on that side of the house, and that the tract is at present not homogenous and for that reason has its own charm. On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, this item was tabled until the meeting df July 26 and the Commis- sion requested a copy of the City Attorney's memorandum on height varia- tion criteria for that meeting. Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion to change the order of the agenda, placing item VI-. B. last because the other items would take much less time. This motion died for lack of a second. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2 Director Hightower reviewed the pro - Lots 1,2,3,16,17 of Tract 28750 cedure for General Plan Amendments Peacockridge and Highridge and gave the background of the re- quested amendment. She said the City initiated the amendment at the request initially of the owners of Lots 16 and 17, and that after the EIR was final- ized, two other owners 3oined the application (Lot 3, and Lots 1 and 2). The request is to amend the land use density from Residential 2-4 du/acre to ResidentiAl 12-22 du/acre. She explained the existing General Plan land use and existing land use and density. She said there was a 4 -story, 8 -unit condominium proposed for Lots 16 and 17, a 22 -unit condominium proposed for Lots 1 and 2, and no proposed project for Lot 3. She reviewed the staff report. Staff felt, after reviewing the surrounding density and the General Plan philosophy, that the maximum the Commission should consider is the 6-12 du/acre range, and that subsequently a zone change be considered for amendment from RS -4 to RM -8. She pointed out that a conditional use permit is required for all new multiple family developments and conditions could be imposed re building location, height, etc., in order to mitigate impacts on adjacent properties. Staff recommends the public hearing be opened, testimony be taken, and the item be continued to the next meeting to allow the Commission time to review the testimony received tonight. Mr. Rosenberg questioned the validity of the environmental impact report. Klaus Schuegraff, member of the Environmental Committee, said he felt it was appropriate to include the entire area in the proposal and that the EIR was sufficient for this General Plan Amendment. Speaking in favor of the amendment were the applicants: Gene Leming, Tise, Inc., representing owners of Lots 16 and 17; Richard Blumenthal, owner of Lot 3; and Ebbe Videriksen, representing C & B Corporation, owner of Lots 1 and 2. De De Hicks, 6120 Scotmist Drive, president of the Stoneridge Homeowners Association, said the Association opposes the amendment and subsequent zone change and listed 6 of th&ir concerns: 1) setting precedent, 2) com- patibility, 3) visual impacts, 4) would like the City to purchase this land for a much-needed park, 5) marketability, and 6) reliance. She also suggested that there be a specific time set for the beginning of each public heating. Ken de Graaf, 28304 Lunada Ridge Drive, corrected the letter sent to the Commission by the Stoneridge Homeowners Association, as follows: page 2, first line, should read 11 units, not 14; page 4, should read page 78 of the General Plan, not page 18. He showed pictures to the Commission and said the proposals would affect the skyline and privacy, and said the pro= ject is inconsistent. He recommended that the sites (particularly the ,--acre site) be looked at by the Park and Recreation Committee for use as a park, and submitted a letter to the Commission from his realtor. Also speaking in opposition were Tom Halley, Peacockridge; Harvey Brown, Mesa Homeowners Association; the Chairman and Patricia Reed of the Casa Verdes Homeowners Association, Rolling Hills Estates; Dennis Sullivan, 6005 Scotmist; and Dick Batt, 6028 Scotmist. Their main concerns were view obstruction and loss of privacy. P.C. MINUTES -5- 7/12/77 Barbara Hein, 30116 Via Rivera, did not feel the EIR addressed the whole problem, expressed concern about the density, and urged the Commission to carefully consider alternatives. Mr. Videriksen, C & B, pointed out that they were dealing with a small portion of land and that the applicants only wanted to gain back the rights they had when they purchased the property. Mr. Blumenthal, said the General Plan designation of the area was made without proper review because of lack of time. He also stressed the need for feasible development of the property. Mr. Leming said the company has owned the lots for 5 years and that when the City adopted its General Plan, it was indicated to him that this area would require further study. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, and unanimously carried, this public hearing was continued to the next regular meeting and the item was tabled. At 12:12 a.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 12:20 a.m. with the same members present. VARIANCE NO. 17 Mr. Weber briefly reviewed the area 6829 Vallon Drive and project description. Based on a Applicant: Stanford Riddle thorough review of the variance re- quest with respect to the mandatory findings, staff recommends denial, since all of the findings cannot be made. Mr. Hughes said he inspected the site and spoke with the applicant. Stan Riddle, applicant, answered questions of the Commission. He said the structure was built 5 years ago and that he was not aware of the County restriction, as he had a similar structure in Santa Barbara built up to the property line which was legal there. On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously car- ried, the public hearing was closed. Some of the Commissioners felt that the neighbor's swimming pool equipment was a similar use and was permitted to abut property lines, pointing out that this was inconsistent. They also felt that because not many proper-'! ties have easements, it would be difficult to consider similar situations. Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to deny Variance No. 17 on the grounds that finding #2 cannot be met. The motion failed with the following vote: AYES: Hughes, Rosenberg NOES: Bacharach, McTaggart ABSENT: Blue Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to approve Variance No. 17 based on findings #1, 3, and 4 as listed in the staff re- port, and on finding #2 as follows: because of the easement along the western side of the property and because similar properties are being used by neighbors as golf course view properties, this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right which is en- joyed by others in a similar circumstance. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hughes, McTaggart NOES: Rosenberg ABSENT: Blue P.C. MINUTES -6- 7/12/77 SPECIAL ANIMAL PERMIT NO. 2 Director Hightower said on June 10, 26101 Basswood Avenue 1976, the Commission granted tenta- Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Yakubic tive approval to the applicants with conditions, and explained that this review is for permanent approval. She said conditions #3 and 4 have been met and that no verified complaints have been received during the probationary period. Staff recommends approval of the permit subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report. There was no one wishing to speak. The Commission briefly discussed the permit. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously car- ried, Special Animal Permit No. 2 was approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The number of large domestic animals shall be limited to four (4), not to exceed two (2) goats, female only. 2. Violation of any sanitary maintenance provision of Section 9163 of the Development Code shall be grounds for immediate revocation of Special Animal Permit No. 2. COMMISSION REPORTS Mrs. Bacharach said she received a notice from the Porto Verde Tenant Association inviting the Commission and staff for a tour of the site to inspect the existing problems. The tours will take place on Thursday, July 14 at 2:30 p.m. and Saturday, June 16 at 10:00 a.m. VNIT0316145MMMM At 12:51 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, July 19, 1977, at 7:30 p.m. P.C. MINUTES -7- 7/12/77